Monthly Archives: July 2005

This seems like really, really good news: Top U.S. Muslim scholars issued a “fatwa,” or religious edict, against terrorism on Thursday and called on Muslims to help authorities fight the scourge of militant violence. American Muslims this month launched a nationwide advertising campaign in which they declared that those who committed terrorism in the name of Islam were betraying the teachings of the Koran. The only thing that concerns me »

Ann Coulter continues to doubt whether John Roberts is a conservative, even as his Justice Department musings from the 1980s show him taking consistently conservative positions on the legal issues of the day. I don’t see how anyone can read his memos, together with his judicial opinions from 20 years later, and conclude that Roberts is other than a conservative. Look for the liberal Democrats to end the “grace period” »

I understand that Congressman Henry Hyde has sent the following letter to Senator Richard Durbin: I read with some interest comments attributed to you in news reports detailing your Monday meeting with the President’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. While we may disagree on various domestic and international issues, we have also found common ground over the years on numerous matters of importance to all Americans. As »

Donald Lambro in the Wasington Times reports on words of wisdom from Democratic operative Harold Ickes, one of Hillary Clinton’s top advisers. Responding to concerns by leftists over Ms. Clinton’s remarks to the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council, Ickes stated, “It’s much more important to look at what she does and how she votes.” If one looks at her voting record, one finds a near-perfect 95 percent approval score from the »

This morning’s Washington Post has a letter by Warren Belmar that makes a good point: While Democratic Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) speak of the short judicial record of John G. Roberts, Jr. ["Democrats Say Nominee Will Be Hard to Defeat," front page, July 21], it should be noted that: *If Judge Roberts’s nomination to the U.S. »

The arrest of one of the failed London bombers apparently has been a breakthrough, as nine more people were arrested earlier today, all in south London. It was also revealed that police found twelve unexploded bombs, some packed with nails, and four detonators in a car belonging to one of the terrorists who died in the July 7 attack. In this rather grisly context, the AP’s gratuitous “religion of peace” »

Dartmouth undergraduate Joe Malchow is the proprietor of Joe’s Dartblog. Joe is justifiably proud of having earned the scorn of the Guardian: “In the pages of the Guardian.” Roger Simon declares: “No more ‘Animal House.’” Does that mean Joe won’t be placed on double secret probation? (Thanks to Instapundit.) »

A politician intoxicated by his own power can be frightening, but a politician drunk on impotence is mostly comical. Senator Charles Schumer, the leader of a group of 38 Senators at most, effectively declared himself the umpire of the Roberts confirmation process. Indeed, the Senator called two strikes on Judge Roberts yesterday, and warned of a third. The first alleged strike is the White House’s refusal to provide memos that »

We haven’t gotten around to noting yesterday’s New York Times story on by John Broder and Carolyn Marshall on John Roberts: “In Reagan’s White House, a clever, sometimes cocky John Roberts.” For those like us who have been trying to get a fix on Judge Roberts, the article is helpful. Here’s the beauty part: There was…the time he offered a snide analysis, in an internal White House memorandum, of a »

Mark Yost is a former writer for the Wall Street Journal, now working in our own back yard as an editoriral page editor and columnist for the St. Paul Pioneer Press. We’ve inadvertently neglected the uproar that Mark has created here in our own back yard recently by criticizing the performance of his media colleagues in Iraq. Michael Fumento does an excellent job telling the story: “Mainstream media suppress Iraq »

In a lawsuit for defamation, truth is the best defense. At FrontPage, Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha explore the application of the defense in CAIR’s defamation lawsuit against one of its most formidable critics: “CAIR founded by ‘Islamic terrorists?’” On a related note, see Fiamma Nirenstein’s New York Sun column: “Muslim ‘moderates’ and terrorism.” »

Federal judges hold their offices for life, subject only to the constitutional requirement of “good behavior.” Tom Delay created a firestorm when he invoked the constitutional requirement in connection with the Terri Schiavo case, but there you have it. Federal judges are among the most powerful men and women in the country, and the powers that they wield are subject to abuse. Judges are not to engage in political activity, »

Jonathan Chait’s diatribe against physical fitness and the Washington Post’s diatribe against the way the Roberts family dresses up prompt this insightful commentary by Tammy Bruce in FrontPage Magazine. Could it be that the most salient divide in our politics is not the gender gap, the marriage gap, or the religion gap, but instead the happiness gap? »

Thomas Joscelyn and Stephen Hayes, writing in the Daily Standard, continue to bring to light the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Joscelyn contributes Part II of his “Pope of Terrorism” piece. He shows how Hassan al-Turabi created a safe haven for al-Qaeda in Sudan, while brokering meetings between that group and Iraqi intelligence officials. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s number two, and Faruq Hijazi, one of Saddam’s most trusted »

Earlier today, Scott posted Manuel Miranda’s excellent piece on the Federalist Society and the lame efforts of the White House to respond to the charge that, heaven forbid, John Roberts might be a member. The best discussion of this group I know of is a Washington Post op-ed by Eugene Volokh from four years ago. Volokh wrote: Our common bond is just that most of us fall somewhere vaguely right »

Walter Dellinger, a top ranking lawyer in the Clinton administration, has a piece in today’s Washington Post about the proper limits, if any, on the right of Senators to question Supreme Court nominees and to discover memos they wrote as government attorneys. Dellinger argues for a broad right to ask nominees directly about how they view controversial legal matters. I agree in principle with the following statement by Dellinger on »